Anyhow, look at any social darwinist robber baron, and see what kind of things their "charity" establishments do. Carnagie, Rockefeller, Ford, and plenty more are funding "research" left & right to try to promote evolutionism. You said funding determines how Behe behaves; you apply the standard selectively. I'm confident you have no clue how to defend the practice, otherwise you'd make an attempt.

(This information also serves as a sound refutation of the "lavishly funded" Discovery Institute, etc. junk we encounter from time to time, should anyone choose to engage on that issue.)

To be a scientist, you do research. The ID "brain trust" doesn't do any research (if they do, I'd like to see it) so there really aren't any.

The Disco 'Tute could fund research instead of court fights and try to earn, not $$$$ types but reputation, respect by showing that there is something to ID instead of "issues" with something else.

The subject is not propagandizing.

The point I raised is your double-standard. Granted you were propagandizing a mile a minute when it became evident, but it is still the point I am discussing, and you are refusing to defend.

I don't have to read Behe's thoughts anymore than I have to read a scientist who publishes papers on how CO2 is NOT warming up the atmosphere when their funding comes straight from the petroleum industry.

Behe's been doing "his work" as an apologist for the "Discovery Institute" or DI or my personal favorite, "Disco 'Tute". He's paid as a "star witness" for Creationists trying to show their religion into science classes (when they should be in "Comparative Religions" as with as many as can be taught and all issues with them brought up, hey "Teach the Controversies" right? I can't think of anythmore controversial than Religion.)

The Behe's writing books, eagerly bought by Creationists to "prove their point" when all they are being is duped and their money taken from them.

So yeah, Dr. Behe has sold out as he makes money that way. No mind reading involved.Don't be snide nor condescending.

If the source of funds determines the outcome of a "scientist's research", evolutionism can't bear scrutiny. Keep gambling nobody gets such a simple idea. It's a pretty simple self-contradictory gamble: you're the one who brought up funding in the first place. Those who didn't get it when you brought it up are about the only ones eligible to continue not getting it.

Raymond Vahan Damadian is a medical doctor, and his field of expertise is medicine. His major contritution to medical science is MRI scanning. There is no indication how Intelligent Design or Creationism Science contributed to or was advanced in the development of the MRI scanner.

This is still relevant as evolutionists commonly chide creationists for rejecting evolution while enjoying modern technology - asserting that to be consistent, creationists should reject the latter if they reject the former. Evolutionists love to claim that creationism/ID is a 'science stopper' and that anyone with such backwards views simply cannot do 'real science'. We are treated to apocalyptic visions of a scientifically illiterate America and such like. When the whole thing was going on in Kansas, the evolutionary establishment warned that America would fall behind in science and technology and that tech-companies would steer clear of students from Kansas for fear that had been kept ignorant about 'real science'. Of course all this is nonsense, as Dr. Damadian, among others, shows. Men like Dr. Damdain are relevant as a response to evolutionary propaganda, regardless or whether you are impressed or not.

Furthermore, as to the 'irrelevance' of Damadian's creationism, the same can be said for evolution. In his article Why Do We Invoke Darwin?Why Do We Invoke Darwin? NAS member Dr. Philip Skell writes:

Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000 "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

Evolutionist Jerry Coyne expressed a similar sentiment:

Ã¢â‚¬Â¦if truth be told, evolution hasn't yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn't evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of 'like begets like'. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all."

~Jerry Coyne, "Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?," reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, Vol 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).

When the whole thing was going on in Kansas, the evolutionary establishment warned that America would fall behind in science and technology and that tech-companies would steer clear of students from Kansas for fear that had been kept ignorant about 'real science'. Of course all this is nonsense, as Dr. Damadian, among others, shows. Men like Dr. Damdain are relevant as a response to evolutionary propaganda, regardless or whether you are impressed or not.

What you responding too I wrote before I had a "road to damascas" moment when I realised gravity makes evolution impossible. The superior oblique muscle could not have formed due to downward motion of gravity. In fact I'm starting to think gravity may also show giraffe necks couldn't have evolved as a natural process, because there is no way natural process could contradict the giraffes neck and make it grow upwards. If evolution was true, giraffes would have necks like swans.

Furthermore, as to the 'irrelevance' of Damadian's creationism, the same can be said for evolution.

Although I support design science, I still do not see what contribution Damadian made to design science. The only advances he made were in technology, in being able to use electromagnetic waves to scan human tissue. While it is a great contribution I don't see how it proves a designer. I think there is far better arguments that prove a designer.

Also, sayin the same 'irrelevance' can be said for evolution doesn't sit well with me. I would like to believe design science is better than evolution and doesn't use the same bad methods.

Although I support design science, I still do not see what contribution Damadian made to design science. The only advances he made were in technology, in being able to use electromagnetic waves to scan human tissue. While it is a great contribution I don't see how it proves a designer. I think there is far better arguments that prove a designer.

Also, sayin the same 'irrelevance' can be said for evolution doesn't sit well with me. I would like to believe design science is better than evolution and doesn't use the same bad methods.

I misunderstood your point. I'm not saying that Damadian's work contributed to or depended on design theory, just that his creationist perspective did not interfere with his ability to 'do science'. That's what I was referring to when I noted the 'irrelevance'.

I misunderstood your point. I'm not saying that Damadian's work contributed to or depended on design theory, just that his creationist perspective did not interfere with his ability to 'do science'. That's what I was referring to when I noted the 'irrelevance'.

Oh right. I agree with what you say.

When I said "irrelevance" I meant, although Damadian is a creationist, he is not a creationist scientist per se i.e. he has not published any research that I am aware of, that advances Creation Science. I believe Adam has misunderstood the question of the OP. Who are the creationist scientists? The one's that are currently developing creation science theories.

Who are the creationist scientists? The one's that are currently developing creation science theories.

The Answers Research Journal (vol. I & vol. II) has a number of papers working towards a creationist understanding of microbiolgy, toxins and parasites. Not sure if this is the type of thing you're looking for, but it's worth a look. I'll re-read the thread a bit later and see if I know of anything else relevant to your post.

When I said "irrelevance" I meant, although Damadian is a creationist, he is not a creationist scientist per se i.e. he has not published any research that I am aware of, that advances Creation Science. I believe Adam has misunderstood the question of the OP. Who are the creationist scientists? The one's that are currently developing creation science theories.

Mainly because of prejudice on the evo side, and the fact that the papers NEVER get published. Why then, should they even attempt?

The Answers Research Journal (vol. I & vol. II) has a number of papers working towards a creationist understanding of microbiolgy, toxins and parasites. Not sure if this is the type of thing you're looking for, but it's worth a look. I'll re-read the thread a bit later and see if I know of anything else relevant to your post.

Since the Answers Research Journal is clear in that papers should be "formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework" and if not does it provide a "possible young-earth, young-universe alternative" and it is to be judged by the editor such that it does not conflict "with the best interests fo AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith" I fail to see the science.It is fundamentalist literal Bible interpretation that the ARJ intends to pursue, not science.

Since the Answers Research Journal is clear in that papers should be "formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework" and if not does it provide a "possible young-earth, young-universe alternative" and it is to be judged by the editor such that it does not conflict "with the best interests fo AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith" I fail to see the science.It is fundamentalist literal Bible interpretation that the ARJ intends to pursue, not science.

The same is true of evolutionary science journals. The dino soft-tissue papers are a perfect example. A tentative conclusion that the bones are thousands, as opposed to millions, of years old is consistent with the empirical experiments done on the material - yet I gaurantee that a paper merely citing such a possibility would never see the light of day. Why? Because it doesn't pay hoomage to the controlling paradigm. This is simply fundamentalist scientism/materialism.

Both creationists and evolutionists interpret the evidence through the lens of a predetermined framework. For creationists [YECs] it is tradtional biblical theism, for evolutionists, it's materialistic naturalism. These interpretive frameworks are not negotiable by their respective adherents. This is true of evolutionists no less than it is of creationists.

Creationists believe that the bible is an accurate historical account of history and thus seek to interpret scientific data accordingly. It's similar to the situation where volcanic rocks of known age are dated via radiometric dating. Often times, when this is done, the radiometric dates are wildly out-of-sync with the known age of the rock. This highlights the historical nature of such questions. If the 'traditional' scientific interpretation [e.g. radiometric date] of a phenomenon conflicts with what is known to be true [e.g. an historically recorded & verifiable age], which do we trust?

Creationists are not just pursuing a 'fundamentalist literal Bible interpretation', they are seeking sound scientific interpretations of dataconsistent with a 'fundamentalist literal Bible interpretation'. Of course, this hinges on whether you trust that the bible is historically accurate. I do, therefore I am a YEC.

The same is true of evolutionary science journals. The dino soft-tissue papers are a perfect example. A tentative conclusion that the bones are thousands, as opposed to millions, of years old is consistent with the empirical experiments done on the material - yet I gaurantee that a paper merely citing such a possibility would never see the light of day. Why? Because it doesn't pay hoomage to the controlling paradigm. This is simply fundamentalist scientism/materialism.

Both creationists and evolutionists interpret the evidence through the lens of a predetermined framework. For creationists [YECs] it is tradtional biblical theism, for evolutionists, it's materialistic naturalism. These interpretive frameworks are not negotiable by their respective adherents. This is true of evolutionists no less than it is of creationists.

Creationists believe that the bible is an accurate historical account of history and thus seek to interpret scientific data accordingly. It's similar to the situation where volcanic rocks of known age are dated via radiometric dating. Often times, when this is done, the radiometric dates are wildly out-of-sync with the known age of the rock. This highlights the historical nature of such questions. If the 'traditional' scientific interpretation [e.g. radiometric date] of a phenomenon conflicts with what is known to be true [e.g. an historically recorded & verifiable age], which do we trust?

Creationists are not just pursuing a 'fundamentalist literal Bible interpretation', they are seeking sound scientific interpretations of dataconsistent with a 'fundamentalist literal Bible interpretation'. Of course, this hinges on whether you trust that the bible is historically accurate. I do, therefore I am a YEC.

My comment was based on the fact that AiG by its own definition and requirements is a theological organization, not one based on science.I am not sure that your comment about the "dinosaur soft-tissue" is accurate. What was the soft tissue? How often do we find it with fossils?Science works in the long run by overthrowing what came before. Sometimes it is difficult but if the research is there the paradigm changes (can't beleive I used that word!). See plate tectonics for example.

My comment was based on the fact that AiG by its own definition and requirements is a theological organization, not one based on science.

One needn't be free of theological commitments or be 'based on science' in order to do good science. In fact, according to traditional Christian theology, it is incumbent upon Christians to 'do good science' in order to fulfill God's command to subdue to the earth and practice good stewardship of it. Thus, 'doing good science' is a direct outgrowth of a YEC theology.

I am not sure that your comment about the "dinosaur soft-tissue" is accurate. What was the soft tissue? How often do we find it with fossils?

You must have been hiding under a rock for the last few years .

In 1997 Mary Schweitzer, protoge of the famous Jack Horner, reported finding soft tissue in a T-Rex femur bone. CMI commented here. Here is a snapshot of what Schweitzer found:

She reported:

The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, Ã¢â‚¬Å“YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve got red blood cells. YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve got red blood cells!"

Tissue fragments from a Tyrannosaurus rex femur are shown at left, when it is flexible and resilient and when stretched (arrow) returns to its original shape. The middle photo shows the bone after it is air dried. The photo at right shows regions of bone showing fibrous character, not normally seen in fossil bone.

Schweitzer said that after removing the minerals from the specimen, the remaining tissues were soft and transparent and could be manipulated with instruments.

The bone matrix was stretchy and flexible, she said. Also, there were long structures like blood vessels. What appeared to be individual cells were visible.

Ã¢â‚¬ËœIt was exactly like looking at a slice of modern boneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. But, of course, I couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t believe it. I said to the lab technician: Ã¢â‚¬ËœThe bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?Ã¢â‚¬â„¢

The Discover article went on to document the unwillingness of many in the scientific community to believe the findings. Even to the point that Dr Schweitzer Ã¢â‚¬Ëœwas having a hard timeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ trying to get her work published in scientific journals.

Ã¢â‚¬ËœI had one reviewer tell me that he didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t possible,Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ says Schweitzer. Ã¢â‚¬ËœI wrote back and said, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Well, what data would convince you?Ã¢â‚¬Â And he said, Ã¢â‚¬Å“None.Ã¢â‚¬ÂÃ¢â‚¬â„¢

Note the philosophical commitment. When creationists make such comments, they are ridiculed for it. Apparently, sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander.

Of course, this was all met with extreme skepticism by the establishment (note that Schweitzer is a cheerful member of the establishment). There were allegations that she and her team didn't not do their work properly and that what they found was probably a 'biofilm' (see commentary at CEH). Then, earlier this year Schweitzer found more such material in a Hadrosaur bone:

This time, she silenced her critics and answered all of their objections. CEH reports:

The hypothesis that endogenous proteins can persist across geological time, as first reported for T. rex (MOR 1125), was met with appropriate skepticism. However, the inclusion of additional sequence data from extant reptiles and B. canadensis strengthens the hypothesis that the molecular signal is preserved at least to the Late Cretaceous. The submicron differences in texture (Fig. 1 and fig. S1), elemental differentiation, sub-Ã¢â‚¬Å“cellularÃ¢â‚¬Â inclusions in osteocytes and vessels, identification of the posttranslational Pro-OH modification not produced by microbes, differential binding of antibodies by both in situ and immunoblot studies, collagen protein sequences, and phylogenetic analyses do not support a microbial origin for either these microstructures or peptide fragments. Coupled with evidence for cross-linking and unusual chemical modifications, the congruence of evidence strongly supports an endogenous origin for this material. The most parsimonious explanation, thus far unfalsified, is that original molecules persist in some Cretaceous dinosaur fossils. Still unknown is the chemistry behind such preservation.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“After first sighting the material, we completed a series of highly detailed analyses to limit the possibility that it was simply an artefact of preservation or something unrelated to the biology of the animal.Ã¢â‚¬Â says UCD geologist, Dr Maria McNamara, the lead author of the report.Ã¢â‚¬ÂWe noticed that there had been very little degradation since it was originally fossilised about 18 million years ago, making it the highest quality soft tissue preservation ever documented in the fossil record.Ã¢â‚¬ÂAccording to the University College Dublin geologists, the muscle tissue is organically preserved in three dimensions, with circulatory vessels infilled with blood.Using the same sampling methods and high resolution imaging that led to this find, scientists will now begin to investigate existing fossils in national museums and elsewhere across the world, for similar types of soft tissue preservation.

Note the sentence in bold. I remember reading that Schweitzer made a similar comment urging museums around the world to start cracking open some of their bones and to look inside. Such finds were never expected because of the controlling paradigm - millions & billions of years.

In this same vein, note again Schweitzer's account from above:

Ã¢â‚¬ËœIt was exactly like looking at a slice of modern boneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. But, of course, I couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t believe it. I said to the lab technician: Ã¢â‚¬ËœThe bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?Ã¢â‚¬â„¢

...and CMI's apropos comment

Notice that her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm.That is in a way quite understandable and human, and is how science works in reality (though when creationists do that, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s caricatured as non-scientific).

Since Schweitzer's first find a few years ago, these stories are getting more and more frequent. Here we have another example where the choke-hold evolution has on the establishment is a 'science-stopper' (much as 'Junk DNA' has been). Imagine how much further along we would be in regard to knowledge of dino biology if it had just occurred to someone - anyone - to look for such material. If it hadn't been that Schweitzer was forced to break that first T-Rex femur in two to get it off-site, we would be the poorer for it. It's not hard to imagine the reaction, pre-Schweitzer, someone would get if they requested to break dino bones to look for such material. They likely would have been hounded out of their job. Schweitzer had trouble getting her work published, despite being a card-carrying member of the establishment. And after all of this, one is still met with ridicule for raising the eminently reasonable possibility that these bones are thousands, rather than millions, of years old.

(Proteinaceous material has also been found in the bone of an Iguanodon.)

Science works in the long run by overthrowing what came before. Sometimes it is difficult but if the research is there the paradigm changes (can't beleive I used that word!). See plate tectonics for example.

True enough, but over-arching paradigms/interpretive frameworks are much more resistant to overthrow than the theories which comprise them. Back to my original point about the dino soft tissue. The evidence from these finds is completely consistent with the bones being thousands, as opposed to millions, of years old. Yet, this possibility isn't even on the table. Instead, we are treated to a 'materialism of the gaps' with appeals to 'unkown processes of preservation' or glib assertions that 'we obviously don't know as much about fossilization as we thought we did' and promises of future discoveries resolving the dilemma. We are apparently supposed to be satisfied with appeals to ignorance and vapor-ware - as long as such devices are invoked by evolutionists. Now creationists, on the other hand...

Wombatty:Ã‚Â I am well aware of most of what you posted re the preservation of soft tissue in fossils.Ã‚Â How old do you think those fossils are?Ã‚Â How would one determine that?

If the face of such evidence, how old do you want those fossils to be? How would one determine that "those fossils" could be millions of years old? It isn't even believeable that they could be a hundred thousand, or even then thousand years old for the matter. But, millions of years?

Now, just this month, soft tissue from a supposedly 18 million year old salamander has been found:

Physorg reports:Note the sentence in bold. I remember reading that Schweitzer made a similar comment urging museums around the world to start cracking open some of their bones and to look inside. Such finds were never expected because of the controlling paradigm - millions & billions of years.

In this same vein, note again Schweitzer's account from above:...and CMI's apropos commentSince Schweitzer's first find a few years ago, these stories are getting more and more frequent. Here we have another example where the choke-hold evolution has on the establishment is a 'science-stopper' (much as 'Junk DNA' has been). Imagine how much further along we would be in regard to knowledge of dino biology if it had just occurred to someone - anyone - to look for such material. If it hadn't been that Schweitzer was forced to break that first T-Rex femur in two to get it off-site, we would be the poorer for it. It's not hard to imagine the reaction, pre-Schweitzer, someone would get if they requested to break dino bones to look for such material. They likely would have been hounded out of their job. Schweitzer had trouble getting her work published, despite being a card-carrying member of the establishment. And after all of this, one is still met with ridicule for raising the eminently reasonable possibility that these bones are thousands, rather than millions, of years old.

(Proteinaceous material has also been found in the bone of an Iguanodon.)True enough, but over-arching paradigms/interpretive frameworks are much more resistant to overthrow than the theories which comprise them. Back to my original point about the dino soft tissue. The evidence from these finds is completely consistent with the bones being thousands, as opposed to millions, of years old. Yet, this possibility isn't even on the table. Instead, we are treated to a 'materialism of the gaps' with appeals to 'unkown processes of preservation' or glib assertions that 'we obviously don't know as much about fossilization as we thought we did' and promises of future discoveries resolving the dilemma. We are apparently supposed to be satisfied with appeals to ignorance and vapor-ware - as long as such devices are invoked by evolutionists. Now creationists, on the other hand...

Great post. And for those who say "anyone that falsifies evolution will be famous", this is just continued evidence they should know better.

If the face of such evidence, how old do you want those fossils to be? How would one determine that "those fossils" could be millions of years old? It isn't even believeable that they could be a hundred thousand, or even then thousand years old for the matter. But, millions of years?

The topic of this thread is "creationist scientists". I asked a specific question. If there are any such creationist scientists out there, how would they suggest we determine the age of these soft tissue fossils? Science, remember science?